Today, On 9th February, The Supreme Court directed West Bengal to ensure over 8,000 officers assigned for the special intensive revision of electoral rolls report to district electoral officers by Tuesday evening. CJI Surya Kant said, “We will not allow any impediment in conduct of SIR.”
The Supreme Court directed the State of West Bengal to ensure that over 8,000 officers assigned to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls report to the district electoral officers by Tuesday evening.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice NV Anjaria, emphasized that it would issue directives to guarantee the smooth execution of the SIR and would not tolerate any obstacles to the process.
CJI Kant asserted,
“We will not allow any impediment in conduct of SIR. This must be clear to all States,”
ALSO READ: BREAKING: CM Mamata Banerjee Arrives At Supreme Court for West Bengal SIR Case Hearing
This assertion followed submissions made by the ECI, which raised concerns about West Bengal’s inadequate cooperation with the electoral authority. The ECI reported that the SIR faced issues of violence, intimidation, and ongoing political interference.
The Court reiterated its earlier direction to the police to maintain law and order and commanded the West Bengal DGP to submit a personal affidavit regarding the allegations against the State.
The CJI mentioned,
“Please look into this. When suspension advice is given, I hope State knows what to do.”
He also allowed the ECI the autonomy to replace any officers not fulfilling their duties.
Moreover, the Court specified that the ECI could utilize the officers provided by the State government if they are deemed qualified, with plans for brief training for these officials to serve as micro observers.
In a crucial clarification, the Court clarified that the role of micro observers or state officials is solely to support the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
The Court noted,
“ECI has clarified that micro observers are not the decision-making authority and shall only assist the ERO,”
In another key development, the Court extended the deadline for completing the SIR in West Bengal by one week.
The Bench stated,
“Since a new set of government officials have been inducted, the process of scrutinizing documents submitted by affected persons is likely to take more time,”
During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi highlighted the widespread issuance of notices to individuals in West Bengal, questioning the software’s approach.
He remarked,
“You are saying 50 years is a grandparents age gap. This is how software is working, when marriages happen at 20.”
The Court also mentioned that notices were sent to those with large families. Justice Bagchi pointed out to the ECI that, while they might have grounds to issue notices in some cases, they had also sent notices for minor discrepancies.
The Court urged the ECI to exercise caution when sending notices based on name mismatches. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, noted that out of the 7.08 crore electors on the draft list, a large number were properly mapped, while others were experiencing discrepancies.
Divan urged the Court to prevent mass disenfranchisement in West Bengal, emphasizing,
“February 14 is a final SIR list. It will be fait accompli.”
He criticized the ECI’s general guidelines for rejections, claiming they contributed to widespread exclusion based on minimal documentation mismatches.
Senior Advocate DS Naidu for the ECI pointed out the necessity for practical experience among the officers being provided by the State for efficient decision-making.
The Court acknowledged that the AEROs provided by the State could commence their duties by the following day and observed that trained personnel would enhance the quality of the electoral process.
Divan noted the urgency for relief and urged the Court to ensure EROs remain the final authority on objections.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who participated via video conferencing, urged the Court to consider the affidavits filed by the ECI, stated,
“One constitutional body is threatening the Election Commission of India. Any directions can be passed to remedy the situation. Violence is being instigated by leader. Please go through the affidavit. A message has to go that Constitution applies to all States,”
ALSO READ: West Bengal Is Targeted: TMC’s Mamata Banerjee Tells Supreme Court Over SIR Controversy
In a prior hearing, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee attended in person to present her petition regarding the issue.
When Banerjee began her argument, she claimed that the SIR was effectively a process of deletion rather than addition.
When Banerjee began her argument, she claimed that the SIR was effectively a process of deletion rather than addition. She explained that individuals often change residences due to marriage or employment, and that women frequently alter their names after marriage, leading to mismatches in identity documents.
Additionally, Banerjee alleged that the ECI was unfairly targeting West Bengal ahead of elections
During the proceedings, Chief Minister Banerjee sought permission to appear and argue her case personally. It’s noteworthy that she holds a law degree from Jogesh Chandra Choudhury College of Law, Calcutta, and last practiced law in 2003.
Last year, the ECI conducted an SIR in Bihar ahead of the assembly elections there, but multiple petitions challenging the process did not result in a stay. Following the absence of a court order, the ECI initiated SIR in several states and union territories, including West Bengal, which led to more petitions against the process.
Banerjee subsequently approached the Court to contest the ECI’s decision and sought directions to base the elections on the existing rolls. She also requested an urgent order to halt the deletion of voters, particularly those classified under the “Logical Discrepancy category.”
Additionally, On February 4, Banerjee appeared before the Court, expressing her concerns about various issues linked to the SIR and alleged that the ECI was targeting the state ahead of the elections. She questioned the urgency of the SIR process, suggesting that significant tasks traditionally take longer.
Case Title :MAMATA BANERJEE Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR. ( W.P.(C) No.129/2026